Too hard? Make it a fucking button somewhere. Too insecure? Make it a key lock.
This is probably the way to go if a jumper is going to be required. You get a bunch of servers in a rack or cabinet and it starts getting complicated to get to the jumpers. But I would make it open nothing closed flash. This way if the wires to the switch get pinched and cut for some reason, it fails to safe (open- no flash).
Getting to a jumper is not always an easy task. When you have a 2 or 4 U server bolted into a rack of 4 or 5 other servers, it is somewhat of a major undertaking pulling it out, taking the cover off, hooking things back up to flash, putting the cover back on, then bolting it back in. You cannot always get to the back of them so holding it half in and out while reaching behind and looking at the reflections of a mirror to see what you are doing complicates things too. Also, when you have something like a 2 or 4 U server with a raid and redundant power supplies, they tend to get heavy.
This is probably part of the reasons why you can flash bioses from within the operating system now anyways.
It depends on if you use the computer for simple file shares and word processing or if it is used for different things like application servers and so on. Drivers have bugs in them all the time. Some bugs simply cannot be worked around. Changes in the Kernel for windows XP service pack 2, ended up with quite a few bios updates and driver fixes (especially for printers) needing to be made. I've seen applications that caused memory issues that bios updates fixed too.
It's like the old saying for microsoft office where 80% of the people will only used 20% of the features or something like that. The vast majority of people will not notice problems in what the bios and or driver update fixes. Manufacturers don't really create and release BIOS updates or diver fixes because they want to keep an idle team of programers busy for a while. It's generally to fix something and that something has caused someone problems.
Your first paragraph does not even makes sense. Your analogy was indeed silly, in that you are right, and there is no point in arguing with silly analogies besides trying to make a fool of yourself.
I suspected you would have difficulties understanding a simple concept but I am somewhat surprised at this point. If you still do not get the point, I simply cannot explain it to you. Perhaps you can ask around some.
And now you are on the hopes my friend and trying to pull arguments from your sorry ass. No judge refused the offers, the Swedish prosecutors did, the same prosecutors that didn't bother to press charges against Assange.
Now wait a minute. I said the only case I know of where the prosecution was overridden in needing the suspect present for questioning was when a judge rules that his statement wouldn't be substantially material to the investigation. You replied in turn that Assange's lawyers attempted to get the same thing but failed. Are you or are you not claiming that Assange's lawyers attempted to get Sweden to waive the custody for the inquiry and if so, are you also claiming their Assange's lawyers did not ask the right people?
And no, no Swedish judge was ever consulted about the Ecuadorian embassy offer or even the lawyers request. Furthermore the prosecution has autonomy to interrogate him without judicial order.
No Swedish Judge would have to consult with the Ecuadorian embassy. The ruling would have already been made when his lawyers failed to negate the in person requirements.
Finally, you are correct, the prosecution does have autonomy to interrogate him without judicial order. However, the rules state that he must be present during that interrogation. IF he wished to challenge that, he can do so by asking a judge for relief. I'm assuming that you are confused and not outright making things up, I'm also assuming that his lawyers are not imbeciles either. This means that for both those assumptions to be true, Assange's legal council would have attempted to get a judge to rule on it. If they didn't, it would seem to be because they know the requirement to be there in person is too strong to waive and it would be a waste of the courts time or they are incompetent and failed to try.
Either way, not getting a judge to rule on the insistence of him being present is a sign of something. The prosecutor is not above the judicial authority of the land.
Doing that is forgery, perjury (if they are called to court), illegal arrest, abuse of power and many other offences all covered by specific laws. Laws are mostly negative, Positive laws only exist to open exception as amendments to other more general negative laws.
Sounds like you started just writing anything that popped into your head that sounded legal. Listen Matlock, of course the police cannot do that- that was the entire purpose of posting such a silly analogy based on your statement. But there aren't specific laws, there are generic laws that would include that behavior. Before you said they have to be specific.
And Assange lawyers did argue requesting video conference to avoid extradition, but their requests were refused.
IF it was refused, then a judge at least said Assange had to be there. Your trial in absentia is moot now according to the judicial code and a judge interpreting it.
he diplomatic authorities of Ecuador also offered to Sweden an opportunity to interrogate him in UK inside their embassy, which was arbitrarily refused by the prosecution. Swedish authorities had many opportunities to question him, and declined all of them.
Arbitrary is being improperly used here. IF the lawyers couldn't get a judge to determine his presence was not warranted, then the Ecuador government would have no luck either. You see, it is precisely because of his lawyers failures that the judicial system says he needs to be present for this to proceed.
You are right though, there might have been opportunities to previously question him, but there are plenty of current opportunities and he is refusing with people like you insisting on imposing beliefs that do not seem to ground well in reality. So lets look where we are at. I'm looking at laws and rules that indicate Assagne needs to be physically present in order for this to come to a conclusion in whatever way it might go. You have pointed out that his lawyers contested the point of his presence being necessary unsuccessfully which furthers the concept of it being neccesary according to the Swedish law. You on the other hand, without pointing to any laws or cases to which it has happened are insisting that whatever you think must be true enough for you to believe it despite all other indications.
I guess we are still in a place where we each are steadfast in disagreement. I doubt that will change soon.
I hope you didn't take that as me accusing you of anything. Rather I was trying to show how the impression can be planted inside someone's mind. Even if it isn't real at a federal level (I know it is at a state level), perception is likely why we see something like this with no other readily explainable reasons.
I would certainly want my trial rescheduled to after an election just out of a sense of how fair the trial and sentencing might be even if it isn't grounded in reality.
There needs to be no law saying what is allowed. In the absence of laws strictly forbidding something it is allowed.
Really? so the government can at any time plant evidence that you SCUBA dive naked and arrest you for that on fake charges because there is no specific law forbidding it? Look it up, there is no law saying the cops cannot plant evidence of a non crime then fake a crime out of it. They cannot do it because they are not authorized by any reasonable interpretation of any law.
You are right when concerning free people. But the process of there being free people requires government to be restricted to what is specifically allowed.
None of the texts you posted strictly say the process cannot follow without his presence. If a law says I cannot cross red lights it does not make physical impossible for me to cross red lights. Conversely if a law says I must present myself in my trials it does not make it impossible for the trial to proceed if I, by any motive, decide to ignore such law.
It says the defendant must be present at certain stages of the game. In the US, it's grounds for convictions to be vacated with no chance of retrying them if they trial in asbentia. Your counter examples negate the fact that in all cases, it is not legal to proceed. Because the law against red lights doesn't stop you from crossing on a red light, it does not mean you escape punishment or consequences if caught doing so. The same happens with the court or a prosecution- if they do not follow procedure, the entire case is subject to consequences.
If you found yourself a case where the judge allowed for it than it is within his discretion, and, as nobody tried to ask a judge if he would allow it in this case, even because nobody pressed any charges against Assange, then you can safely argue that they are purposely avoiding the possibility of it being granted.
Ok, I'm posative you have a reading comprehension problem. Did you miss the part in the law that says the defendant doesn't need to be present if his questioning isn't substantially material to the case or the part where I said the one case I read about, the judge specifically declared the testimony wouldn't be substantially material to the case? This means the judge followed the existing law or rules as laid out. If it was possible for Assange to claim his testimony or statement would not be substantially material to the proceeding, his lawyers would have already attempted to have a ruling on it where a judge would agree and allow the questioning without him being there.
Hell, even if your version of things is remotely correct, Assange's lawyers would be arguing it in court right now and we would have legal documents available to show it. The fact that doesn't exist, the fact that I cannot find any other cases similar to what you insist is possible, the fact that you cannot either and I'm sure if there was any, all sorts of Assange supporters would be plastering them all over the net, these facts combine to suggest you are not connected with the reality of the situation.
It's not so much that anyone cares, it's that someone could care. You see, there is a guy claiming he is a lawyer and posting on slashdot about "quite direct personal experience, at least in this case" which tells me that someone somewhat cares and others might end up caring as well.
It may or may not be the case in this specific situation/case. As a rule though, the worst time to be arrested or in a criminal trial is near a major election because of the propensity for it to happen.
On the federal level, it might not be as transparent, but it still happens Judges get appointed from lower levels to higher levels by political appointment and the consent of the senate. There is no way for them to progress otherwise except through the hierarchy of the same seat in circuits that have multiple judgeship. If a circuit judge want to sit on the appeals court, or even the supreme court, he will have to entertain whatever fancies the politicians in power or most likely to be in power at the time the appointment is considered. In fact, in order to become a federal judge, it is highly influenced by who you know over what you know.
Yes, you are correct. The marketing habits of people en mass do not directly reflect the reality of what they want or desire at all. I'm sorry I attempted to make the correlation between the mass appeal of certain fictional stories to what people desired in real life to show that desire might be actually prone to manifest in real life.
Perhaps you have a comprehension problem or something? I did not say anything made it "ok". I said it is something people desire so if you treat people badly, some of them will in turn treat you the same or worse in retaliation.
In other words, without getting into the morality or legality of it, it is an observed human behavior that is increasingly being seen.
I have never seen anyone ridiculing the obese who differentiated between glandular condition and sloth or over indulgence. Furthermore, without glandular conditions, thing like poverty and malnutrition can cause obesity without requiring sloth and overindulgence, and they get made fun of just as much.
I think you suffer from what you describe. Intelligence is relative. The smartest kid in the class can still be one of the least intelligent in the state.
sigh.. If it says he must attend and they have a hearing without him attending, where is the law or case law that says it is a valid hearing when he doesn''t attend?
You just saying it will be valid means nothing. Show me the law that says it will be. I'm sure if it is common, you can at least point to a case of it.
There is only one that I read about. It was where someone was out of the country and a judge said his presence wasn't substantially material enough to require his presence and a video conference would suffice. This further strengthens my position though.
You see, the entire point is that people do things, sometimes even irrational and illegal things because they felt justified in doing so. If you mistreat people, expect that eventually someone will mistreat you back.
Am I in favor of vigilantism? Not particularly. As I said, that happened a long time ago- and I have gotten wiser in my age. But I can see when there might be times I would do something again and I can see how others would too. For instance, I would assault someone to stop then from harming others if I thought the others couldn't stop it themselves.
Some of the best selling hollywood movies and TV shows are the ones where someone is mistreated in some way then fights back or someone fights back for them (think cop drama). Even comic books find that theme a hit with almost every hero. Sometimes they operate against the law, sometimes alongside it, and sometimes within it.
It say shall attend, is bound to be present. Those are not words giving an option to do something. If the law say you shall stop at red lights, it does not mean if you feel like it.
As I said, this is to ensure a fair trial. Try reading it again and not weaseling words into it in order to keep your seemingly incorrect views.
Around election time is one of the worst times to go on trial or get arrested. Too many "see, I'm tough on crime" politicians exist. Waiting 6 months is likely going to net him more favorable terms and perhaps a more "fair" trial as behind the scenes activity will be less.
Even the deals will be better because politicians won't need to pressure judges to be strict so they can gain favor with the voters.
I'm not sure congress made any law saying you cannot wear a certain Tshirt. I'm also pretty sure the guy you are replying to spoke about how you treat others ends up influencing how others treat you. Again, not a law congress made.
Is it right? probably not. But i have seen some real jackasses where i thought it might be justified to give them a rough time. This entire situation reminds me of about 25 years ago when some teen parked at the neighbors house was blasting the base style music. I had a sick kid (1vyear old) and it was echoing inside my house waking her up. I asked them to keep it down. The neighbor kid who was generally well behaved said sure thing, they didn't realize it was carrying inside the house. The punk who owned the car turned it up saying it was a free country. I then heard the kid crying again and got mad, grabbed a screwdriver that happened to be there and jammed it into his speakers ruining his base and two 6x9s in the rear deck. problem solved. was i right in doing it, no- but I have rarely felt as justified in doing anything since then.
(yes. he called the cops and tried to sue me. I got less then a slap on the wrist-- $80 fine and costs both suspended on 1 years good behavior and a disorderly conduct on my record, paid his father for the speakers, and found the cops and judges to be very sympathetic to me. The kid ended up getting 20 hour community service for violating a noise ordinance)
So you have no laws you can point to, no previous cases in Sweden that survived challenge you can point to, and despite being given direct access to the English version of the judicial code, you are going to close your eyes or mind, eyes, and impose whatever rationale you can imagine despite evidence of the contrary. And you have the gull to point to my ignorance.
I do not think we will ever convince the other of anything here if it continues this way.
The courts seemed to disagree with your and Wikipedia's interpretation. Perhaps the prohibition is built within the case law but my understanding was the law was specifically designed because hippies and what not were being refused service. You do not get more political then hippies protesting wars.
Your broker is correct when talking about complex systems that in part are derived or heavily influenced from human emotion like fear, anger and greed.
However, in this context, it's a bit reversed with human emotion being influenced by the concept of facts instead.
That's not really the case in a lot of places. Especially in California with the Unruh Civil Rights Act. You generally have to show a reason that impedes your business, offends a law, or harrases your clientele in order to refuse service to anyone.
But then again, in a lot of other places, it is perfectly acceptable. Although I think if your business is open to the public, it should be open to the entire public else specifically state who it is not open to.
Trial in absentia for criminal offences is indeed forbidden in common law, but in most countries that follow Roman Law it can be done, for example. Either way the point is moot. Even if in Sweden it couldn't be done, they could still have interrogated him in UK and charged him if they decided there was enough evidence to do it. Then they could have asked for him to be extradited to stand trial. They did not. Sweden refused all opportunities it had to interrogate Assange.
Did you read the sections of the code I mentioned? It said he could only be absent from their custody if his statements are unimportant. We are not talking about what you think should happen, we are talking about a written law.
Now add that to the fact the "crime" in the worst possible scenario for Assange would imply in his being imprisoned for a year or so in Sweden (which almost never happen in cases like this), against possibly staying in an embassy room for life and you will see how ridiculous these claims about his doing this to evade his "crimes" is.
Actually, the only thing I'm seeing as ridiculous is the constant comparison of someone who imprisoned with someone who is holed up in essentially a large house with unlimited restrictions on communications, business opportunities, free interaction with outsiders, and all the contraband that would otherwise be denied in prison. Being in prison is not just a restriction on movement. The situation Assange finds himself in now is not entirely unlike a lot of his life in which he lived out of hotel rooms and such.
Please show me where the law says it is allowed then.
My interpretation of the code I presented is that the requirements for the defendant or suspect to be present is to maintain a fair trial and protect the rights of the accused. Having one in absence of the defendant or suspect would seem completely counter to that.
In the US, criminal trial in absentia is prohibited by constitutional and the same Judaical rules as well as various laws. It is not a matter of common law baring it.
The problem with you position is that you essentially said human life is important unless someone has a medical procedure that ends another life, then it's no one's business but the one person getting the medical procedure.
If you are truly willing to believe that human life starts at conception, then the medical procedure would be the termination of another life. We can then slip into the entire, you need a kidney, he has a good one and is going to die as long as I get it problem, and keep the same "it's no one's business but mine concerning what medical procedure I can have".
The real conservative is not enforcing morality in this situation, they are enforcing the rights of the life being killed. With the Kidney slip, it is obvious how wrong/illegal it is to kill or take the life of someone to get a medical procedure (and rightly so). But with Abortion, even though you are willing to accept it is a life, you can't see the same protections for human life being valid.
This isn't really your house though. It's a public company doing business with the public. Can you refuse to sell shoes or food to someone with a Mitt Romney or Burak Obama Tshirt on?
Slashdot Mirror
This is probably the way to go if a jumper is going to be required. You get a bunch of servers in a rack or cabinet and it starts getting complicated to get to the jumpers. But I would make it open nothing closed flash. This way if the wires to the switch get pinched and cut for some reason, it fails to safe (open- no flash).
Getting to a jumper is not always an easy task. When you have a 2 or 4 U server bolted into a rack of 4 or 5 other servers, it is somewhat of a major undertaking pulling it out, taking the cover off, hooking things back up to flash, putting the cover back on, then bolting it back in. You cannot always get to the back of them so holding it half in and out while reaching behind and looking at the reflections of a mirror to see what you are doing complicates things too. Also, when you have something like a 2 or 4 U server with a raid and redundant power supplies, they tend to get heavy.
This is probably part of the reasons why you can flash bioses from within the operating system now anyways.
It depends on if you use the computer for simple file shares and word processing or if it is used for different things like application servers and so on. Drivers have bugs in them all the time. Some bugs simply cannot be worked around. Changes in the Kernel for windows XP service pack 2, ended up with quite a few bios updates and driver fixes (especially for printers) needing to be made. I've seen applications that caused memory issues that bios updates fixed too.
It's like the old saying for microsoft office where 80% of the people will only used 20% of the features or something like that. The vast majority of people will not notice problems in what the bios and or driver update fixes. Manufacturers don't really create and release BIOS updates or diver fixes because they want to keep an idle team of programers busy for a while. It's generally to fix something and that something has caused someone problems.
I suspected you would have difficulties understanding a simple concept but I am somewhat surprised at this point. If you still do not get the point, I simply cannot explain it to you. Perhaps you can ask around some.
Now wait a minute. I said the only case I know of where the prosecution was overridden in needing the suspect present for questioning was when a judge rules that his statement wouldn't be substantially material to the investigation. You replied in turn that Assange's lawyers attempted to get the same thing but failed. Are you or are you not claiming that Assange's lawyers attempted to get Sweden to waive the custody for the inquiry and if so, are you also claiming their Assange's lawyers did not ask the right people?
No Swedish Judge would have to consult with the Ecuadorian embassy. The ruling would have already been made when his lawyers failed to negate the in person requirements.
Finally, you are correct, the prosecution does have autonomy to interrogate him without judicial order. However, the rules state that he must be present during that interrogation. IF he wished to challenge that, he can do so by asking a judge for relief. I'm assuming that you are confused and not outright making things up, I'm also assuming that his lawyers are not imbeciles either. This means that for both those assumptions to be true, Assange's legal council would have attempted to get a judge to rule on it. If they didn't, it would seem to be because they know the requirement to be there in person is too strong to waive and it would be a waste of the courts time or they are incompetent and failed to try.
Either way, not getting a judge to rule on the insistence of him being present is a sign of something. The prosecutor is not above the judicial authority of the land.
Sounds like you started just writing anything that popped into your head that sounded legal. Listen Matlock, of course the police cannot do that- that was the entire purpose of posting such a silly analogy based on your statement. But there aren't specific laws, there are generic laws that would include that behavior. Before you said they have to be specific.
IF it was refused, then a judge at least said Assange had to be there. Your trial in absentia is moot now according to the judicial code and a judge interpreting it.
Arbitrary is being improperly used here. IF the lawyers couldn't get a judge to determine his presence was not warranted, then the Ecuador government would have no luck either. You see, it is precisely because of his lawyers failures that the judicial system says he needs to be present for this to proceed.
You are right though, there might have been opportunities to previously question him, but there are plenty of current opportunities and he is refusing with people like you insisting on imposing beliefs that do not seem to ground well in reality. So lets look where we are at. I'm looking at laws and rules that indicate Assagne needs to be physically present in order for this to come to a conclusion in whatever way it might go. You have pointed out that his lawyers contested the point of his presence being necessary unsuccessfully which furthers the concept of it being neccesary according to the Swedish law. You on the other hand, without pointing to any laws or cases to which it has happened are insisting that whatever you think must be true enough for you to believe it despite all other indications.
I guess we are still in a place where we each are steadfast in disagreement. I doubt that will change soon.
I hope you didn't take that as me accusing you of anything. Rather I was trying to show how the impression can be planted inside someone's mind. Even if it isn't real at a federal level (I know it is at a state level), perception is likely why we see something like this with no other readily explainable reasons.
I would certainly want my trial rescheduled to after an election just out of a sense of how fair the trial and sentencing might be even if it isn't grounded in reality.
Really? so the government can at any time plant evidence that you SCUBA dive naked and arrest you for that on fake charges because there is no specific law forbidding it? Look it up, there is no law saying the cops cannot plant evidence of a non crime then fake a crime out of it. They cannot do it because they are not authorized by any reasonable interpretation of any law.
You are right when concerning free people. But the process of there being free people requires government to be restricted to what is specifically allowed.
It's not so much that anyone cares, it's that someone could care. You see, there is a guy claiming he is a lawyer and posting on slashdot about "quite direct personal experience, at least in this case" which tells me that someone somewhat cares and others might end up caring as well.
It may or may not be the case in this specific situation/case. As a rule though, the worst time to be arrested or in a criminal trial is near a major election because of the propensity for it to happen.
On the federal level, it might not be as transparent, but it still happens Judges get appointed from lower levels to higher levels by political appointment and the consent of the senate. There is no way for them to progress otherwise except through the hierarchy of the same seat in circuits that have multiple judgeship. If a circuit judge want to sit on the appeals court, or even the supreme court, he will have to entertain whatever fancies the politicians in power or most likely to be in power at the time the appointment is considered. In fact, in order to become a federal judge, it is highly influenced by who you know over what you know.
Yes, you are correct. The marketing habits of people en mass do not directly reflect the reality of what they want or desire at all. I'm sorry I attempted to make the correlation between the mass appeal of certain fictional stories to what people desired in real life to show that desire might be actually prone to manifest in real life.
Perhaps you have a comprehension problem or something? I did not say anything made it "ok". I said it is something people desire so if you treat people badly, some of them will in turn treat you the same or worse in retaliation.
In other words, without getting into the morality or legality of it, it is an observed human behavior that is increasingly being seen.
I have never seen anyone ridiculing the obese who differentiated between glandular condition and sloth or over indulgence. Furthermore, without glandular conditions, thing like poverty and malnutrition can cause obesity without requiring sloth and overindulgence, and they get made fun of just as much.
I think you suffer from what you describe. Intelligence is relative. The smartest kid in the class can still be one of the least intelligent in the state.
sigh.. If it says he must attend and they have a hearing without him attending, where is the law or case law that says it is a valid hearing when he doesn''t attend?
You just saying it will be valid means nothing. Show me the law that says it will be. I'm sure if it is common, you can at least point to a case of it.
There is only one that I read about. It was where someone was out of the country and a judge said his presence wasn't substantially material enough to require his presence and a video conference would suffice. This further strengthens my position though.
Sure, whatever you say.
You see, the entire point is that people do things, sometimes even irrational and illegal things because they felt justified in doing so. If you mistreat people, expect that eventually someone will mistreat you back.
Am I in favor of vigilantism? Not particularly. As I said, that happened a long time ago- and I have gotten wiser in my age. But I can see when there might be times I would do something again and I can see how others would too. For instance, I would assault someone to stop then from harming others if I thought the others couldn't stop it themselves.
Some of the best selling hollywood movies and TV shows are the ones where someone is mistreated in some way then fights back or someone fights back for them (think cop drama). Even comic books find that theme a hit with almost every hero. Sometimes they operate against the law, sometimes alongside it, and sometimes within it.
It say shall attend, is bound to be present. Those are not words giving an option to do something. If the law say you shall stop at red lights, it does not mean if you feel like it.
As I said, this is to ensure a fair trial. Try reading it again and not weaseling words into it in order to keep your seemingly incorrect views.
Around election time is one of the worst times to go on trial or get arrested. Too many "see, I'm tough on crime" politicians exist. Waiting 6 months is likely going to net him more favorable terms and perhaps a more "fair" trial as behind the scenes activity will be less.
Even the deals will be better because politicians won't need to pressure judges to be strict so they can gain favor with the voters.
I'm not sure congress made any law saying you cannot wear a certain Tshirt. I'm also pretty sure the guy you are replying to spoke about how you treat others ends up influencing how others treat you. Again, not a law congress made.
Is it right? probably not. But i have seen some real jackasses where i thought it might be justified to give them a rough time. This entire situation reminds me of about 25 years ago when some teen parked at the neighbors house was blasting the base style music. I had a sick kid (1vyear old) and it was echoing inside my house waking her up. I asked them to keep it down. The neighbor kid who was generally well behaved said sure thing, they didn't realize it was carrying inside the house. The punk who owned the car turned it up saying it was a free country. I then heard the kid crying again and got mad, grabbed a screwdriver that happened to be there and jammed it into his speakers ruining his base and two 6x9s in the rear deck. problem solved. was i right in doing it, no- but I have rarely felt as justified in doing anything since then.
(yes. he called the cops and tried to sue me. I got less then a slap on the wrist-- $80 fine and costs both suspended on 1 years good behavior and a disorderly conduct on my record, paid his father for the speakers, and found the cops and judges to be very sympathetic to me. The kid ended up getting 20 hour community service for violating a noise ordinance)
Evidently you cannot comprehend what you read. It says the defendant or subject of the questioning has to be present in plain and simple words.
Now close your eyes and ignore that and go on your merry way doing whatever you have to to justify your beliefs.
So you have no laws you can point to, no previous cases in Sweden that survived challenge you can point to, and despite being given direct access to the English version of the judicial code, you are going to close your eyes or mind, eyes, and impose whatever rationale you can imagine despite evidence of the contrary. And you have the gull to point to my ignorance.
I do not think we will ever convince the other of anything here if it continues this way.
http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service
The courts seemed to disagree with your and Wikipedia's interpretation. Perhaps the prohibition is built within the case law but my understanding was the law was specifically designed because hippies and what not were being refused service. You do not get more political then hippies protesting wars.
Your broker is correct when talking about complex systems that in part are derived or heavily influenced from human emotion like fear, anger and greed.
However, in this context, it's a bit reversed with human emotion being influenced by the concept of facts instead.
That's not really the case in a lot of places. Especially in California with the Unruh Civil Rights Act. You generally have to show a reason that impedes your business, offends a law, or harrases your clientele in order to refuse service to anyone.
But then again, in a lot of other places, it is perfectly acceptable. Although I think if your business is open to the public, it should be open to the entire public else specifically state who it is not open to.
Did you read the sections of the code I mentioned? It said he could only be absent from their custody if his statements are unimportant. We are not talking about what you think should happen, we are talking about a written law.
Actually, the only thing I'm seeing as ridiculous is the constant comparison of someone who imprisoned with someone who is holed up in essentially a large house with unlimited restrictions on communications, business opportunities, free interaction with outsiders, and all the contraband that would otherwise be denied in prison. Being in prison is not just a restriction on movement. The situation Assange finds himself in now is not entirely unlike a lot of his life in which he lived out of hotel rooms and such.
Please show me where the law says it is allowed then.
My interpretation of the code I presented is that the requirements for the defendant or suspect to be present is to maintain a fair trial and protect the rights of the accused. Having one in absence of the defendant or suspect would seem completely counter to that.
In the US, criminal trial in absentia is prohibited by constitutional and the same Judaical rules as well as various laws. It is not a matter of common law baring it.
The problem with you position is that you essentially said human life is important unless someone has a medical procedure that ends another life, then it's no one's business but the one person getting the medical procedure.
If you are truly willing to believe that human life starts at conception, then the medical procedure would be the termination of another life. We can then slip into the entire, you need a kidney, he has a good one and is going to die as long as I get it problem, and keep the same "it's no one's business but mine concerning what medical procedure I can have".
The real conservative is not enforcing morality in this situation, they are enforcing the rights of the life being killed. With the Kidney slip, it is obvious how wrong/illegal it is to kill or take the life of someone to get a medical procedure (and rightly so). But with Abortion, even though you are willing to accept it is a life, you can't see the same protections for human life being valid.
This isn't really your house though. It's a public company doing business with the public. Can you refuse to sell shoes or food to someone with a Mitt Romney or Burak Obama Tshirt on?